The pollution of UX
6 September 10
It was only a matter of time until our first high-profile discreditation. Whatever anyone may say about the timing of Ryan Carson’s UX Professional Isn’t A Real Job, I saw one clear upside: I could talk with him face to face, far away from the ambiguities and public politics of the web. So I cornered Ryan at the dConstruct party for a lengthy, good-natured, beery chat, in which I stated my case with respect and passion. He conceded some points (such as that Carsonified apps are written for themselves as primary users, negating the need for UX specialism), as did I. I agreed to follow with a written rebuttal.
The post’s misrepresentation of UX is easily refuted: everyone should know how to cook, so why have chefs? The generalist/specialist debate has been replayed in knowledge work for decades, and answered recently by folk smarter than I. But three days later, the rebuttal doesn’t particularly interest me. Nor do I bear Ryan any grudge. Instead, my mind lingers on the painful and disheartening truths behind his post and our discussion.
As I read his tweet, I immediately forsaw the reaction: a hundred angry replies, and a hundred crowing retweets. It confirmed what I have long feared: the UX industry faces a credibility crisis. Victims of our success, we’ve created a rush of interest that has indeed caused some appalling job title inflation. Thousands of mediocre web generalists are now calling themselves UX designers in an effort to gain cash and authority.
The UX industry is becoming polluted by dilettantism. It’s no surprise then that people are attacking the field. We can expect more of it, and there’s a real chance that the fury and division we see in the conversation surrounding Ryan’s post will soon drown out the cause we espouse—designing technology that helps people be productive, empowered, and happy. Our peers are divided, with thousands eager to denounce our work. We have been unable to convince an influential web figure of our value. And this is a real shame since, alongside the flash-in-the-pan opportunists, there are exceptional people in UX who have formed a community of intelligence, generosity and thoughtful action. To see their work and passion decried as quackery makes me tremendously sad.
Perhaps my pessimism is exaggerated by too long in front of a computer and not long enough in front of a cocktail. But I’m disheartened that the cause I’ve dedicated my adult life to is seen as a fradulent landgrab. I worry it’s the beginning of the euphemism treadmill that could leave the UX label permanently damaged.
23 comments on The pollution of UX
Not the response I was expecting, a well thought out response with great priorities.
Still not a fan of your example regarding chefs, however agree with everything else.
Well done Cennydd for the best response to this whole debacle.
This may not be the response people expect, but I think it gets to the heart of this matter concisely:
“Thousands of mediocre web generalists are now calling themselves UX designers in an effort to gain cash and authority.”
I said much the same in my comment on Ryan’s post:
“Just like in the early days of the web, every man and his dog called themselves a ‘web designer’ because they knew how to get a webpage online. Today, every web designer is calling themselves a ‘UX designer’, and while of course web design is about defining and creating an experience for a user… it still irks me too, how freely it gets thrown around. That however doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate title for a profession/discipline.”
Cite: http://thinkvitamin.com/opinion/ux-professional-isnt-a-real-job/#comment-22651
It seems baffling to me that more people don’t see through to this core issue in the same way, hopefully your post will help more people to open their eyes. Great work.
Thoughtful as always. It is always a worry that people are jumping on ‘the band wagon’ and bringing that arm of the web design community under the spot light, I’m thinking this will next be placed on the content strategists.
I agree with the analogy and tweeted last night that you don’t have to be a mechanic to drive a car, but you will need to know someone who is.
Small sites don’t need as much UX as a big, colosal site and I do think that there are some unscrupulous people as there always are that will overcharge the naive client by ‘bigging up’ the buzzwords of the industry.
Let’s just home this discussion doesn’t continue into a ‘name-slaying’ event calling various good people in this community for who they are rather than discussing the point they are trying to make.
Looking forward to 17th of September :-D
Mr Cennydd Bowles,
Thank you for this interesting response to an interesting article!
I feel that perhaps you have taken Mr Carsons post rather too much to heart. To say the UX is seen as some kind of ‘fraudulent land grab’ in Ryans eyes from reading his post seems to be an over reaction. He makes it clear that solid UX principles should be ingrained on anyone who calls themselves a web designer. This is an endorsement of your specialist area is it not? Of course we do not have the benefit of knowing what exactly was discussed by the both of you at dConstruct, and no doubt, as you said it was friendly and good natured. I think that it’s clear that specialities can exist under the umbrella of web design. Be it UX, Graphic Design, Typography, SEO, Photography etc.
We all need specialists and experts – that is not to say that one person can not do it all, perhaps just not in such a comprehensive or informed way.
This is a great gentleman’s response. This real argument at hand is the specialism/generalist. If not handled appropriately, however, I see time and time again when a UX specialist ticks their boxes, hands their work over to the design team with minimal subset of UX understanding to see the visual design completely wash out the UX. This is where I see Carsonified’s view come into place, as such an incident wouldn’t occur?
Too many agencies, not enough clients-with-large-sized-websites in this debate anyway. So ultimately, who cares? :)
DJ
Nice response Cennydd,
It’s a problem in pretty much every discipline or group lacking formal accreditations, and even in some fields that have them.
I have friends who are very talented content strategists, and I’ve heard them complain that now “people read Kristina’s book and now change their job title”.
It’s something we’ll have to get used to, anyone who buys a guitar can call themselves a singer songwriter, anyone who buys Scrivener can call themselves a struggling author, anyone who can do the Crip Walk can call themselves a gangster.
You are what you repeatedly do. There are UX people who walk the walk, and there are people who gave themselves a promotion on Linkedin. If the field of UX has merit then it should be possible to tell the good from the bad pretty easily. If this isn’t easy to spot, then it’s our problem to deal with, and we can’t blame the forty-niners.
Sidenote: I expect this argument to eventually fade into a “bad UX is bad mmkay?” truism, just like “bad agile is bad”, and “bad documentation is bad” and “bad waterfall is bad”. Bad stuff is bad, film at eleven :)
Nice post, sorry I missed dConstruct, would have liked to catch up.
Des
The assiduous cream will inevitably rise to the top.
Touche @Des Traynor
As a non-UX based design professional (i do web but have no desire to say “I do UX design”, even though to a small level it’s involved.). UX is sadly a field in that your end goal is to become invisible. Once noticed your goal becomes almost unobtainable… like finding the end of the Sellotape… once found it begins to be unravelled, flaws found and the experience put under a microscope.
The reason people are able to call themselves UX professionals with little depth of knowledge is because the field is not really know, or certainly it’s extent… I’m in design as a profession but if someone asked me to outline specific details involved in being a UX based professional i’d flounder.
Don’t want to sound too ignorant here… just thought I a little outside perspective might throw some light on the argument.
Valid points. But what’s the solution? Thinking of some examples (chefs, architects, medical professionals) the only way those professions avoid the dilution of the value of their qualifications by dilettantes is through professional accreditation. Professions without widely-recognised, stringent accreditation (including most of the design professions) are perhaps doomed to job-title inflation and confusion. But savvy clients (and recruiters) recognise this and look to candidates’ experience and portfolio. How much are we really losing out?
Might the situation be better in 5 or 10 years’ time when there are more well-recognised UX degrees in tertiary education, and that might sort the wheat from the chaff? I wonder, in a field that is as new, and evolving as rapidly as ours. Much of the job-title kerfuffle in our field can be put down to to an industry in its relative infancy.
The arrival of dilettantism is a feature of “knowledge industries.” It’s happened in translation, consultancy, marketing, and will probably happen in content strategy. People see it and say ‘I could do that’.
Whenever work is based partly on intuition, empathic imagination or even artistic inspiration, the market will frequently give amateurs and professionals equal status and therefore equal economic reward.
Whenever an activity requires those imaginative qualities, you can abandon any hope of turning it into a system and hence of measuring it. And if you can’t measure it, you can’t put an accurate price on it. As a marketer once said, “half our advertising works, we just don’t know which half”.
How could UX experts respond to this? History shows your options are:
1) Stamp out the “artistic” side of UX. Demand evidence for everything you do. Turn UX into a system in order to make it (more) measurable.
2) Professionalise, or become a guild. That’s to say, forbid newcomers from practising until they’ve passed tough exams or have the requisite 10,000 hours of experience
3) Communicate what you do better. Educate clients to discriminate between bad and good work.
4) Tolerate amateurs, in the hope that they become masters.
If the past is a guide to the present, you’ll probably have to blend all four.
Good response. It’s not the first time it’s happened. And it won’t be the last.
You’re seeing the same sort of thing happening with graphic design, and Agile over recent years too.
I’m personally not that pessimistic though. The same thing happened in the late eighties/nineties over “usability”. It went from being a broad term – much like UX is today, to everybody being a usability expert, to it being now mostly about usability testing.
The change in definition didn’t really change the work that was done. Indeed it may even have helped as “newer” labels like UX broadened the church of disciplines that people user to make better products.
It’s why – at many levels – I don’t really care much about the continual war of definitions and labels. Sturgeon’s law is always going to apply – more so when fields get popular.
Instead I’m hoping people will focus more on the specific practices and techniques. Less talk about “UX”. More talk about persona construction, story mapping, user interview techniques, etc. It’s much, much harder to bullshit around specific practices and techniques.
Maybe the various roles and practices will get a good shuffle. Maybe that’ll help us find some new and interesting ways to build things. That’s my hope anyway :-)
I don’t care about the label. I care about building better products. If what we do as UX helps make that happen then those techniques will survive. If the label doesn’t – I’m not really that worried.
It’s a largely undefined field which is still subject to a lot of ‘normalisation’ by the industry.
UX people are somewhat guilty of always wanting to create new/innovative approaches to working on projects, as opposed to following a well established best-practice processes.
So I find myself having to work through a pretty different approach whoever I am working with, which is fairly annoying.
This leaves a lot of room for people coming in unqualified as they can bullshit their way in easier.
I’ve been thinking in the same lanes as James, here. There’s always going to be those who brand themselves as the new hottest thing because it’s where the attention is in the market place.
As James pointed out, traditional designers have and still do pass themselves off as web designers, even though they have basically no understanding of what it is to be a web designer.
The entire SEO industry has been smeared due to a rush to The New Hottest Service To Sell, which spawned thousands of SEO experts overnight.
There’s probably hundreds more examples of this, but the concept is the same: something becomes buzz-worthy, people try to take advantage of it, and then it becomes a fad where professionals get drowned out by laymen.
UX is definitely going to go in that direction, just as every other truly worthwhile thing that has popped up over the years. Web design, SEO, and UX are all brilliant things, all trades have their true experts and professionals. Yet there will be, like there always has been, a fight to try and separate the true experts from the wanna-bes who are only doing it to earn a quick buck, until they move on to the next thing.
For that reason, it was incorrect for Ryan Carson to exclaim that there is no such thing as a UX Professional, but he does have a point that there’s blood in the UX pool, and the true pros need to get ready for it.
*Plays “Jaws” music*
Exactly the same thing happened with Web Design. Since neither discipline has recognised accreditation we can get away with calling ourselves whatever we like. Always worth getting references and seeing a portfolio before employing an “expert”!
I wonder if the UX profession is going through the same cycle as social media folks did a little while back, with the growing importance of the field spawning a growing profusion of ‘experts’, ‘gurus’ and ‘ninjas’ – and also a flowering of scepticism from others about whether they really knew anything.
Perhaps rather than being an issue specific to UX, this is more about the wider patterns of how new disciplines emerge and the stages they go through?
Some good points made here. In the end it doesn’t matter if you title yourself as a Web Designer, Developer or UX Professional, it’s all about your work. Sure, anyone can say you are the next big thing, but, can you deliver the goods?
This has been an interesting discussion. Personally, I think the field is changing, and its important to recognize that. When I think of UX design and how its best employed, I typically think of complex web sites which require someone to think through various use cases and technical constraints.
I work at a global company with product managers, engineers, web developers, and UX designers. I’m shocked at how often engineers and web developers don’t notice the glaring UX problems. Why is that? Because for this large scale sites, their job is to focus on the development and getting the code right, not necessarily on the flows and front end behavior as a UX expert would see it.
Is there developers who understand good UX? Of course. Is there good UX designers who develop? Yup. But, it doesn’t mean that our profession is bullshit. All you got to do is look at the portfolios of some of these professed UX professionals and you’ll see the problem straight away.
Yes. I agree with everyone else — folks are using the title to follow the money, like they have on other titles. I’m surprised though that no one has brought up a point that has chafed me about UX Pros for a while.
The term UX professional is a broad general term that just about anyone can lay claim to because it is impossible to disprove: just what are they anyway? Bricklayers lay bricks, fishermen fish, UX pros do…. stuff. Companies hire UX pros because somebody told them that is what they need. But what do they need? Designers? Researchers? Ethnographers?
Often they want a two-for-one discount of someone creating a web presence for them then testing(proving) it’s the design they need. This is similar to hiring a coder then having them QA their own code.
I think we would all be best off discouraging the term UX professional and stick to titles that actually tell our customers what we do.
For me, Mr. Carson’s post was a display of ignorance.
UX is concerned with scope, and Andy Budd’s reply perfectly articulates the distinction between a UX savvy web designer and a UX designer who works at the enterprise level: http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2010/09/why_i_think_rya/
While the title of “user experience designer” might be “damaged” because of dilettantism within the web design community, keep in mind that this debate is a community debate, and there will still be the need to distinguish designer roles for clients, many of whom will likely be unaware of such an inwardly focused debate.
I wrote a response similar to Andy’s, and you can read it here:
http://stewartmccoy.com/portfolio/article/re-ux-professional-isnt-a-real-job
Welcome to the club!
Do you have any idea what atrocities designers have been bearing with for decades now? People who barely know how to use Photoshop calling themselves designers, managers stating crap like “design is all about taste” so they can easily override design decisions a pro has made just like that? It annoys the hell out of me, but I’m afraid it was a question of time that UX would share the same destiny.
I’m just happy that no amateur yet had the gall yet to call himself a typographer… ;-P
I think the “size-of-the-website” comments are particularly interesting, since I’ve never worked on a large-scale site that would really NEED a specialist in UX.
I’m am a freelance web designer. Wouldn’t it be worse if I didn’t expand my knowledge of UX at all? While I don’t go around calling myself a UX expert (or really selling clients on my UX knowledge), I tend to explain to clients that part of my design process involves all kinds of considerations that other designers might not take into account (UX, SEO, load time, best practices, browser compatibility). If I end up working on much larger websites, I’m sure other specialists will come and take over those areas.
I’m a generalist until I can afford not to be. Great article.
Add a comment